Fighting midwit tendencies daily On here for stories -- Corp DNA, the Deciders + their decision quality. Don't care what you think of Powell or Yellen .

World of my own making
"DCF to us is sort of like Hubble telescope - you turn it fraction of inch & you're in differnt galaxy" Third Ave. CIO & PM, Curtis Jensem
1
66
262
Jay Siegel retweeted
AI is automating the mechanical work in data science. What’s left, and matters more, is judgment. @danhockenmaier and I wrote about what’s ahead and why proactive DS could have their best years ahead. blog.jesslachs.com/cp/222364…
2
5
312
Jay Siegel retweeted
I wouldn't trade UK assets unless you have 20 years of experience as an EM trader, preferably in LatAm. Shrub's troll thought of the Day
33
14
411
79,632
Jay Siegel retweeted
“At this time”
2
3
9
3,322
Jay Siegel retweeted
What is lost amid Visa & Mastercard consistent & healthy reports is that US card spend has accelerated from +5-6% to +8-10% in recent years. $V cites strong economy as it manifests in strong jobs market & real wage gains. 💪 $MA $AMZN $WMT $WSM $XLY $XLF $XRT $DAL $CCL $MAR $ABNB
Another healthy report on consumer from Visa on US (+10%) & International (+9%) spend with credit modestly outpacing debit. $V points out consistency and strength in spend. While higher end is spending fastest, lower end also growing steadily. $MA $AXP $XLY $XLF $COF $JPM $BAC
3
4
19
3,509
"The difference between humans and animals is that animals never allow a fool to lead the pack"
1
1
5
502
Jay Siegel retweeted
Towards the end of his career Daniel Kahneman was asked what the most important finding from all his years of research was. His answer: make it easy. It might sound like a statement of the obvious. But Kahneman makes the point that, although people intuitively know if they make a behaviour easier it’ll happen more, they consistently and significantly underestimate the scale of impact of small bits of friction. As this brilliant cartoon by @marketoonist suggests, businesses are too willing to leave friction in the process. They think people will push through barriers to get to their amazing products. But in reality, the smallest pieces of friction tend to have an outsized effect on behaviour! The implication is simple - for every customer touchpoint, identify even the tiniest barriers along the way, and if possible, take them out. That can have a bigger effect on behaviour than giving more and more reasons for why people should use your service. *** If you'd like to learn more, I'm running a training session on behavioural science for better marketing on December 10th. More details here: tickettailor.com/events/astr…
4
22
205
14,775
Jay Siegel retweeted
Financial Times currently running a print special. $129 for the whole year. Get it while it’s hot. Unless you live in some backwater state where it is not delivered, then you’re outta luck.
15
6
417
243,607
Jay Siegel retweeted
Netflix has spent the last few years telling investors that it was excited about its foray into video games. Today's earnings update has zero reference to that business.
6
28
310
39,329
Jay Siegel retweeted
If everyone on your investment team comes from similar backgrounds, knows similar people, and evaluates companies through similar frameworks, where exactly do you expect your non-consensus insights to come from?
11
4
33
3,330
Jay Siegel retweeted
Pepsi paid $2bn for Poppi and now says it won't pay the $300m earnout. Everyone's acting surprised. What happens when a giant buys a challenger brand, with the receipts: - Honest Tea, Odwalla, Zico: all bought by Coke, all discontinued. Zico's founder bought it back. - Bai: Dr Pepper paid $1.7bn, wrote most of it down. - Bodyarmor: Coke paid $5.6bn, took a $760m impairment three years later. - Rockstar: Pepsi paid $3.85bn, has lost share every year since. - Freshly: Nestlé paid $1.5bn, shut it within three years. - Dollar Shave Club: Unilever paid $1bn, sold it for a fraction seven years later. - Bonobos: Walmart paid $310m, sold for $75m. - Mirror: Lululemon paid $500m, wrote it off and shut it. - Ballast Point: Constellation paid $1bn, sold for pocket change four years on. - Reebok: Adidas paid $3.8bn, sold for $2.5bn fifteen years later. - Snapple: Quaker paid $1.7bn in 1994, sold for $300m in 1997. The original. The pattern isn't bad luck. The brand was bought to protect the original and core portfolio, not to grow. Once it's off the market, the job is done. If you ever sell to one of these: the cash on day one is the price. Everything else is a promise from someone who is incentivized is not to keep it.
116
326
4,535
2,599,250
Dec 2007 --- new Fannie prefs selling at insanely hi yield (>7%). Isn't it govt backstopped?
For those who were adults during the 2008 financial crisis, what was your holy crap, the economy is actually crashing moment?
1
299
Construction noise in the neighborhood came to a stop
For those who were adults during the 2008 financial crisis, what was your holy crap, the economy is actually crashing moment?
2
247
Jay Siegel retweeted
BOND EXPERT WARNS OF $110 BILLION SELLING SHOCK IF TREASURY YIELDS HIT 6% Veteran bond strategist Harley Bassman warns of a “nightmare scenario” in U.S. Treasuries. If the 20-year Treasury yield rises above 6%, futures-related hedging could trigger selling pressure equivalent to $110 billion in bond issuance. The 20-year yield currently stands near 5.6%. Bassman says negative convexity risks have reached levels not seen since 2007, potentially amplifying the Treasury selloff.
56
119
768
187,734
I’m excited to present tomorrow at @SohnConf San Francisco. We’ll be unveiling the results of many months of investigative work.
16
18
311
67,685
"physics still applies"
From $TMUS @JohnSaw "A satellite hundreds of kilometers above Earth faces approximately 50 dB more path loss than a terrestrial cell site just a kilometer away. Moving from 2 GHz to 800 MHz recovers only a few dB of that enormous disadvantage." linkedin.com/pulse/spectrum-…
3
342
Jay Siegel retweeted
My daughter's middle school has the most direct fundraising strategy and I'm here for it. We can skip the whole charade.
973
2,639
45,999
3,339,037
Last month I sat in a Boston ballroom watching the world's biggest consumer goods companies pitch low-single-digit growth as a triumph. From 1980 to 2000, these were among the best investments on earth. What went wrong? An obituary to the American pantry 👇 moatsandmultiples.substack.c…
1
9
55
15,253
from @therobotreport , $VPG focused on solving robotic hands problem -- custom designed parts for prod -- 1960s tech repurposed for phys AI therobotreport.com/precision… @theinformation excerpt outlines why hands are the holdup theinformation.com/articles/… @robinivski @agnostoxxx
1
7
477
long windy explanation why my pinned tweet has stayed that way for decades
Every investment decision I've ever made has been informed by a Excel spreadsheet. A financial model that serves as a business simulation and a translation layer between research & insight. The model ultimately is a place to quantify my variant perception and quantify the downside if I am wrong, the two critical pillars of any good public market investment thesis. One of my PM friends says his analysts spend all day with "their noses in models", identifying and researching the hinge variables in a business. This is the game of alpha generation, simple not easy. A cornerstone of the hedge fund interview process is the modeling test, and hedge funds routinely hire ex bankers & private equity for this skill. (A certain hedge fund founder is rumored to have fired analysts who tried to repurpose sell-side models as their own.) When you peel back the onion on Tier 1 fundamental research process, four years since the Chat GPT 3.5 moment, AI adoption is slow & uneven with the median investment process far from transformed (despite an exceptional amount of tokens burned...). Why is that? To me, it's simple. The "bar to impress" a public equity investor with AI has to start with the financial model architecture as the nerve center of the investment process. Almost every AI workflow for investors I've seen is a "hey this is sort of interesting", but not a "you will take this from me over my dead body" workflow. An agent that can summarize your morning inbox well is convenient but won't bend the curve of alpha. An automated, auditable, full-stack research system built around an architecture of Excel models that can help me do the rigor and depth of investment research in 3 days that used to take me 3 weeks? That changes everything. Financial modeling as the foundational layer in that workflow, the critical unlock to truly enact a full end to end research & risk system. Yes, it is productivity, but ultimately it is more about speed to insight and surfacing the right insight to the decision maker at the right time (this is what great analysts do). "But judgment will still sit with the PM, right?" What is investment judgment if not gathering and weighing as many unique insights about a business as possible then continuously comparing that view to market implied expectations? "Brett, but won't modeling move to JSON?". I've heard selective instance of that. Perhaps eventually. But Excel is just this beautiful, auditable, sharable, trusted substrate on Wall Street. It won't die a quick death. The challenge investors have of reinventing their investment process while running risk is materially different than software engineers adopting coding agents. Until September 22nd when Opus 5.5 was released, the technology wasn't there. It's here now. For this simple reason, I believe we are entering a period of accelerated adoption of AI in Finance, particularly in public equity investment process. I am having conversations with firms who are interested in co-developing and enacting this vision for their investment teams. If this resonates with you, please DM.
203